BHARAT PRAHLADBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions by three different detenus raise the same questions of facts and law and, therefore, they arc heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Each of these detenus was ordered to be detained by an order of detention, Annexure D, dated 3.7.1986. Each of the detenus made a representation on 29-7-86. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 31-7-1986, and on the strength of the same, the State Govt. confirmed the order of detention on the same day. Thereafter, the representations made by the detenues were considered by the State Government and rejected by an order dated 5.8.1986 and that was conveyed to the detenus on 6-8-1986. These facts are not disputed.

(3.) One Mahesh Kumar Soni was also detained by an order dated 3-7-1986 and his detention was also confirmed on 31-7-1986, while his representation dated 28-7-1986 was considered by the Government on 5-8-1986 and then the decision was conveyed to the detenu on 6-8-1986. The detention of this Mahesh Kumar was challenged by Special Criminal application no. 817 of 1986 and a Division Bench of this court (S. B. Majmudar and R. J. Shah, JJ) by an order dated 3-12-86 allowed the petition and quashed the order of detention, relying upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, one reported in Sk. Sekawat v. The State of West Begnaf1, and the other reported in Vimal Chand Jam v. Pradhan and others2. In both these cases before the Supreme Court, the order of detention was confirmed by the Government without considering the representation and, therefore, it was held that the confirmation was violative of art 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. We, have gone through both these judgments of the Supreme Court. Looking to the ratio of the above two decisions of the Supreme Court, we are also inclined to quash the order of detention of these three detenus on the same grounds on which the detention was quashed and the Supreme Court in the above cases and on which ground the detention was quashed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 817 of 1986.